To demonstrate the absurd pointlessness of this massive... thing, I will review this comic using a single cropped but otherwise unedited screenshot and three sentences following it. I wish I edited the picture to make that juxtaposition, but look for yourselves (which I know you won't because that's why you're here).

(1)"fucking megan, keeping our kids from going to Hogwarts"

(2)It's a good thing his readers apparently aren't good at money, or they'd realize the absurdity of paying $15 for one 36"x24" poster, but $150 for four 36"x24" posters -- should i be yelling or laughing, what even is this.

(3)There are many things wrong with the java script (such as creating a new page every time it tries to reload the image or just being unintuitive), the graphic presentation (such as requiring us to follow it in what can only be described as an 'S' if it had fallen forward onto its face, drunk from all the colorfully named drinks it bought which it kept claiming made it "eccentric" and "interesting" in a way that you filthy plebes just wouldn't... ahhhh.... hold on [*throwing up noises*], or the fact that he presents sums on the order of 6000-8000 in thousands, and expects us to be awed at the fact that there is all of a 1-2 tiny boxes difference), and questionable factual issues/typological mistakes/general mistakes (such as... well, I'm not going to say anything because unlike the previous two criteria, he can actually ret-con these), but rather than make a ginormous list I'm going to let you all say what you disliked or found incorrect in this comic, because I know you are all just dying to post your individual fault that you have discovered and I wouldn't dare threaten your pride by stealing your stolen thunder using this stolen thunder which was itself stolen, mmk, so go nuts down there i know i might.

I have located a problem which you did not mention and cannot be easily retconned: the image did not contain any reference to romance, sarcasm, math, or language. Or humor. Randall usually at least makes some feeble attempt at something meant to be intelligent or funny. This is just a dump of data. Not even good data.

Agreed with 11:20. The radiation one in the past was sort of interesting because it's something that most people have no idea about and this mode of graphical representation wasn't something he'd done before.

What he did was completely reuse one of his old ideas and apply it to a new concept that most everyone understands really well already (how much shit costs). It's so... not interesting at all.

And it pisses me off so much how some of my Facebook friends are drooling over it. I guess people have such low expectations for xkcd now that anytime he does something that looks like he put time into it, people go crazy.

"(2)It's a good thing his readers apparently aren't good at money, or they'd realize the absurdity of paying $15 for one 36"x24" poster, but $150 for four 36"x24" posters -- should i be yelling or laughing, what even is this."

I didn't even look at the prices, but HOLY SHIT. If you want to know what Randy really thinks of his readership, look no further. He didn't even bother to design the chart in quarters, so doing it as four tiled posters is going to look like a cheap DIY job anyway. God dammit Randy, if you're going to charge someone $150 for a poster the least you can do is make it look professional.

As he astutely points out below "The Economic Vortex", for these drooling idiots, "The process is complicated." With my mathematician's hat on, I see nothing complicated at all: you buy stuff as cheaply as possible and you sell as expensively as possible to the most ignorant consumer available.

In particular, the "price" of his large poster is $150, a policy borne of his knowledge of the stupidity of his readers.

(An interesting poster would actually show, for various industries, the flow of money and who creams off from the top at each stage. This poster has no coherence and no value, just like its mediocre, cancer-pandering author.)

")There are many things wrong with the java script (such as creating a new page every time it tries to reload the image " ..

Umm wow. None of those things happen. You may perhaps glimpse a redraw because panojs works on a tile system. (but hey so does google maps). This is simply the way it was done, not js's fault. Also, it's a fairly good way to do it. You might notice only the hash changes in the URL, the page is *not* being recreated. a js function is just running to update the hash, the images etc. js actually does quite the OPPOSITE of making a "new page" every time. You just talk out your ass and are incredibly wrong whereas randy makes a chart with hours of research. Amazing. I hope your web site goes away.

When you go to the javascript viewer and look around a little bit and then press back, it does not take you back to Randy's terrible homepage but rather just ineffectually changes the hash tag such that you must either press back for every single navigation that you made in the viewer or give up all together. This is what we mean when we say it makes a new page; we are not talking about any technical specifics of what it means to load a new page, but rather the practical issue that it poses to the end user as it takes up space in our back button queue.

Thank you for your time and have a pleasant thanksgiving, you fuckstain.

I looked back in my web browser [Chrome] history, and between loading the javacritter that runs the thing twice (i must have closed the browser for some reason), I managed to rack up 35 pages worth of history that just read "xkcd: Money Chart" over and over and over. So I don't really care about the definition of "page reloading", because my real point was "why the fuck does this one webpage which I opened twice take up 300+ entries in my history?" Yes, I can just delete it, and no, it's not like this inconveniences me in any real way. I just don't get WHY.

Srsly. =[ I will never know the joy of kneeling before Randall like you guys, mouth open and ready to receive my reward. Truly this review was just the product of envy. I will never be as awesome as you leet hackers =[

Yes... doing deep linking with javascript breaks the back button... big whoop. You can fix it though some wizardry with iframes or timers, and most people don't bother. (because it's a clusterfuck) This is an off-the-shelf free viewer. its not like randy coded it jees.

Srsly. =[ I will never know the joy of kneeling before Randall like you guys, mouth open and ready to receive my reward. Truly this review was just the product of envy. I will never be as awesome as you leet hackers =[

Am I the only completly annoyed by Randall not knowing that Hogwarts is a STATE* school? It's never stated outright, but it's hyper-implied.All the students have to pay for is school materials (including uniforms, cauldrons, potion ingredients, books, wand, etc.), but there's even a fund meant to cover those costs for those who need it. The Ministry of Magic can't afford to leave badly-educated wizards and witches running around, they are forced to make sure Hogwarts exits; not to mention that individual persons can, and aften do, make donations to Hogwarts through the Ministry.Hogwart's biggest expenses are probably food and staff's salaries, since it must be extent from any form of taxing used in that world. Hagrid grows some vegetables and what not, so the food they actually have to buy is not much, considering that wizards, while they can't produce food out of thin air, can enlarge the quantity of already existing food. * I say STATE, to avoid the confusion between British public(i.e. paid) schools and American public (i.e. state school).

So babies waste like $50 a day in breast milk and that's not counting them wasting 12 hours a day of the mother's time, valued at $30/hr, = $360 a day. $131,500 a year. So you'd be way better off getting a Wii than having a child.

Pretty sure Anon 1:23 said it was funded by taxes and donations, unless you somehow count that as "money falling out of the sky."

Hogwarts definitely doesn't have any tuition. After Harry first finds out he's a wizard, they take him to his vault and specifically tell him to only take out as much as he needs for school supplies. If he needed to pay tuition, he would have had to take that out, too. But they never say anything to him about taking out enough gold to pay tuition.

Also there are lots of characters who are poor and who fret about being able to afford things like robes and school supplies, but there's never any mention at all of them worrying about tuition.

And Tom Riddle was an orphan with no money, but he still went to the school. And since he was poor, they gave him free gold specifically for school supplies- again, tuition is never mentioned.

I think it's pretty much the law that all magical people have to go to school- it's not legal to do magic on your own until you're 17 and educated. That's why Hagrid's wand was broken and he's not allowed to do magic- because he didn't complete school. So they'd have to make sure every single witch and wizard went to school. They couldn't make it tuition-based and keep out all the poor people.

11:23, so what you're saying is that Javascript is a half baked solution to application development and that only a bunch of morons would choose it as a platform for serious coding?

And if you read that I'm implying that Google are staffed by morons, then you're half-right: Google is a one trick search pony with a thousand useless tools Apple-marketing down geeks' throats because they do adore having all of their information taken from them and their features reduced to one tenth their original AS LONG AS IT'S NOT MICROSOFT CUZ GATES IS THE DEVIL AND BALLMER SWEATS.

I think the worst thing about this graphic is that Randy did not correlate the facts in it in any significant way. I looked at that box called "six things I learned while researching this chart" and I thought: All that research to learn THAT? What a waste!-What is the point of collecting so much data if you are not capable of actually understanding it?

I would say hogwarts is funded mainly by donations hence the power of the Malfoys. This is often the way in public schools (private schools) where succesful old pupils donate large amounts. This is becoming less so of cause but certainly was the case.

"I love the "incl. tuition" clarification, because tuition is one of those hidden costs of attending a school that you never think of."

yeah, usually people say "including fees," because you sometimes don't think of the various fees you might have to pay to be a student somewhere when just looking at tuition. but I guess that's for us normies, and not for Randy, who is OMG SO QUIRKY and thinks backwards from the normal world

"I would say hogwarts is funded mainly by donations hence the power of the Malfoys. This is often the way in public schools (private schools) where succesful old pupils donate large amounts. This is becoming less so of cause but certainly was the case."

while it was not a wizarding school, the private school I attended here in the States received a lot of money through donations, and there were several families that were comically powerful because of it.

"I think the worst thing about this graphic is that Randy did not correlate the facts in it in any significant way. I looked at that box called "six things I learned while researching this chart" and I thought: All that research to learn THAT? What a waste!"

the part that bothers me is the implication that he already knew the rest of it.

As if outsourcing the editing job to the fans wasn't bad enough already, here's a suggestion from the forums:

Just a thought: What if xkcd offered a subscription whereby people could pay maybe $15/yr to get the comics a day early? This way a smaller more dedicated audience could see and report typos a day before each comic is released to the masses.

"Marketers, the xkcd Money infographic is now the standard by which all of your infographics will be measured by."

You can't be serious. Xkcd 980 is not a bad infographic, but it's obviously not the best.

This bit is worse though:

"The entire chart is 12,528 by 8,352 pixels. That would take five Apple 27" Thunderbolt Displays to render full-size, side to side. It would take 30 Apple 27" displays to show in its entirety at full size. Or you could buy your very own copy to hang on the wall and admire without having to purchase a phalanx of $1,000 monitors."

He's surely not suggesting that we actually do this. And sure, when you put it that way, buying the giant poster seems like the better option.

Ok, so I've been coming to this site for a while now, every now and again, and I've gotta say: this sucks. Everyone here is so goddamn smug, it's just a giant circlejerk. I'll give you that the webcomic is bad, I'll give you that it's gotten worse, and I'll give you the fact that originally it was this site that made me see it. However, it's really degenerated into mindless hate and trolling. I get the impression that even if Randal managed to create a good comic people here'd be unable to see it because they're so focused on finding things to dislike. I should make an XKCD sucks sucks site.

Megan jokes stopped being funny awhile ago. Just because the site is about being nasty for no reason, that doesn't mean the nastiness can't be more creative and original, and based more on the problems of the comic. You guys do this on your free time so you don't have to change anything, it's just my opinion. Keep doing what you're doing if you want. :P

Good review by the way, Ravenzomg. This comic was shitty and boring beyond belief. Who honestly would spend the time to read all of that, enjoy it, and PAY to have a large copy of it? It boggles my mind.

Goodbye Janet DoeThough I never knew you at allYou had the grace to wear your wigWhile those around you scrawledThey scrawled into MSPaintAnd they whispered into your brainThey set you on the milk pumpAnd they made you change your name

chorus:And it seems to me that you're Randall's wifeA mistake but not a sinHaving no real man to cling toWhen Big C set inAnd I would have liked to have bought youBut I was just outbidYour bosom burned out long beforeYour potential to be milked for sympathy by a failing comic who desperately needs a new creative angle and to look like more than a big kid with no real responsibilities ever did

Stick figure female geek was toughThe toughest role you ever playedRandall created a superstarAnd pain was the price you paidEven when you diedOh the trolls still hounded youAll the hate blogs had to sayWas that Megan was found lactating

[repeat chorus]

Goodbye Janet DoeThough I never knew you at allYou had the grace to wear your wigWhile those around you scrawled

From the young man browsing xkcdsucksWho sees you as something more than sexualMore than just our Megan Munroe

Jon, almost everybody i know uses that term, the only types i can think of that don't are people that are able to avoid social media (lucky asshats) or hipsters that refuse to be a part of the system, took that term, AND THREW IT ON THE GROUND

Xkcd has been decreasing in quality for a while now and sometimes it's lame, but THIS site is sometimes "a giant circlejerk" as you put it, where ppl pat themselves on the back for making agressive comments about "Randy", and other times is pure shit thrown at the guy who makes a web comic - and his fiancée. Personal attacks are the lowest, and show you how this site has degenerated to a much lower level than whatever xkcd has ever done.

Re haters: I'm basically trying to break down this site through shitty guest reviews. Unfortunately, people keep saying i'm doing something right, so i don't really know any more. I thought the "Randall x Rob slash fic" review would've done it, but apparently not. I don't really understand what these people dislike anymore, and it's become a morbid fascination more than anything: what level of crap are you people willing to put up with before just leaving. Answer: more than i would ever have thought. >:?

And Randall doesn't come to this site because he said it would be weird, so I will never feel particularly bad about the meaningless straw-randalls and straw-megans we create.

That's a rather futile goal, Ravenzomg. Pretty sure the vast majority of people who were interested in criticizing xkcd in a semi-intelligent fashion gave the site up long ago. The people remaining don't give a damn what they read or write. It's little better than /b/ with a significantly smaller audience, which is as broken down as it's ever going to be. All that's left is for everybody to finally drop off because they get bored of it or get girlfriends or jobs or something.

I love how people come to this hate blog and act like it should be held to some kind of standard. Like, it's our duty to post only reasonable, rational criticisms of comics, and give it praise when necessary.

I suspect these are mostly middle-aged housewives who only just discovered the Internet and log on to AOL 4.0 during the commercial breaks of their soap operas. That's the only explanation for that kind of cluelessness.

"I love how people come to this hate blog and act like it should be held to some kind of standard. Like, it's our duty to post only reasonable, rational criticisms of comics, and give it praise when necessary. "

Well, Rob does that every once on a while, he pretends to be all reasonable and rational and acts as if those who question him were not. So what is this about?

Cut the shit. You know what you've done and how you've attacked others. Come on, anyone here can go back some posts and find your words pretending to be all reasonable and rational, so stop being a smart-ass.

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.